Today is the final day of the We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive! If you haven’t donated yet, click that little button below! Thanks!
I‘m continually amazed by the amount of time and energy that antifeminists put into fighting monsters of their own creation — that is, the imaginary feminists in their heads who bear about as much resemblance to real feminists as the rapacious, Machiavellian characters in The Protocols of The Elders of Zion do to real Jews.
I’ve made the Protocols of the Elders of Zion comparison more than a few times before, but I ran across an example of antifeminist monster-making earlier today that parallels the Protocols so exactly that it’s kind of unnerving.
The original Protocols, as many of you no doubt know, were an anti-Semitic forgery concocted in Russia by the Tsarist secret police around the turn of the twentieth century, purporting to offer proof of a plot by a cabal of Jews to take over the world. The document offered what it claimed was a transcript of a secret meeting of the aforementioned Elders that took place at some point late in the nineteenth century; in fact, most of the dialogue was plagiarized from works of fiction published many decades earlier.
Basically, the so-called Protocols are a collection of cartoonishly eeeeevil fake quotes from imaginary Jewish Elders. But millions of people, including Henry Ford and a certain Adolf Hitler, believed them to be real. Or at least acted as if they did.
Much of what Men’s Rightsers and other antifeminists believe about feminists is similarly bogus. I’ve written before about the collections of dubious “evil” quotes from feminists that regularly make the rounds on the antifeminist web (and that any number of antifeminists have cut-and-pasted into the comments here).
And I’ve written about the deliberate disinformation campaigns started by #GamerGaters and MRAs by spreading made-up quotes attributed to feminists like Jessica Valenti and Anita Sarkeesian.
So today I ran across yet another example, this time in the form of an “infographic” featuring an obviously fake quote purportedly from Gloria Steinem that was being passed around by a couple of A Voice for Men Twitter soldiers today.
I’ve pasted it above, though, as you may have noticed, I’ve taken the liberty of adding the words FAKE QUOTE in big red letters in case the picture gets into someone’s image search results sometime in the future.
So how do I know the quote is fake? Well, there’s the fact that it obviously is. But, to be sure, I used my highly sophisticated internet search skills to type part of the first sentence of the fake quote into a website called “Google.”
Looking through the results, I discovered that the “quote” originally appeared in a post with the ungrammatical title “Are Chimps smarter than Feminist?” on a little blog called The Waterpipe.
The Waterpipe is not a source that inspires much confidence. The blogger behind the site made only four posts in total, all of them attacks on feminism; the site’s “about” page contains the dummy text that WordPress expects bloggers to replace with their own bios.
The “Are Chimps smarter than Feminist?” post begins — shades of the original Protocols! — by plagiarizing a hefty chunk of text about chimpanzee tool use from the website of the Jane Goodall Institute.
The “author” then goes on to suggest that chimps are in fact smarter than “feminist” because
The chimps have demonstrated an ability to conduct their parasitical relationship with termites in a sustainable manner as to not exhaust the termite nest and thus increase chances of survival, this survival instinct is not present in feminist. …
the feminist movement has made it its primary objective to eradicate masculinity. Ironically women in their 30s who are childless, unmarried and on a steady supply of anti-depressants are now questioning “Did we overdo it”
As evidence, of sorts, for this contention, the author presents us with the similarly ungrammatical lament of an obviously fictional character named “Clara Strongwoman,” who declares
I was willing to be a good wife, cook and clean while the man bought home the bacon, but you lousy feminist had to ruin it for all of us with your endless victim-hood, outrageous demands and out of control sense of entitlement.
While it’s pretty clear that the blogger here seriously believes the MGTOWish crap he’s peddling, it’s also pretty clear that he means “Clara Strongwoman” to be a joke.
He follows her obviously fake quote with an obviously fake dialogue amongst famous feminists, which he introduces as follows:
Top feminist from different organisations were secretly recorded by an anonymous user called Agent Orange on a debate with each other if they exhausted their parasitical relationship on men.
In other words, these famous feminists are purportedly discussing what to do now that they’ve driven men away with their endless demands.
Here’s a portion of the dialogue, purportedly between Steinem, radical feminist and anti-porn activist Gail Dines, and someone called “Bonnie Grabenhoffer” (two f’s) — who is presumably supposed to be NOW Action Vice President Bonnie Grabenhofer (one f).
As you’ll notice, the blogger doesn’t bother to try to make the discussion sound even vaguely convincing; it’s basically a very crude satire. The fake Steinem quote from the infographic is right in the middle of it all; I’ve put it in bold.
>Gail Dines: We pushed them too far and now there’s no going back, we had men right where we wanted, they worked long hours while we could play hide and seek in our pajamas with the kids, they went to die in wars, while we did easy house chores with our washing machines, dishwashers and vacuum cleaners.
>Gloria Steinem: I agree with Gail we even had chivalry, a fu**ing social etiquette that was heavily enforced which disposed men to heroic actions for the benefit of women, but now chivalry is being associated with beta behaviour.
Of course I agree with everyone in this room that emasculating and degrading men was the right thing to do, but we should have left a little bit of dignity in men so that they were still useful to us>Bonnie Grabenhoffer: We could try shaming tactics but even the dumbest men still have an adequate survival instinct
We are trying very hard to rebuild society by removing male spaces but now we have things like Men Going Their Own Way and male rights groups popping up>Gail Dines: Why? We cant even shame men into doing things anymore, they have little masculinity, how can a man even sink lower? I think what we need to also do is destroy the male survival instinct. Then they will start marrying women again.
Yes, that’s right: it’s a secret cabal of “top feminist” trying to figure out … how to get men to marry women again. Frankly. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were more convincing.
Yet this ridiculous blog post got picked up by other antifeminist blogs and passed around by assorted antifeminists on Facebook. Now the fake quote is making the rounds on Twitter.
One atheist/Linux blogger reposted some of the dialogue above as if it were authentic, taking particular umbrage at the fake Steinem’s fake “stupidity.”
These so-called feminists put men down for doing just that to women for centuries. What’s their answer? If women are to be happy and productive, women need to do to men what women thought was horrible when men did it to them. I see no difference between Steinem and some chauvinist pig who thinks women should be in the kitchen cooking, barefoot and pregnant. …
I have a suggestion for the Steinems of this world: help free humanity from its primitive roots and stop spreading this bucolic bacchanalia about making slaves out of men.
Fake quote, real anger. See how that works?
People believe what they want to believe. When it comes to feminism, a lot of people are determined to believe the worst.
The more gullible anitifeminists believe the fake quotes are real; the more cynical antifeminists may be well aware the quotes are fake, but they’re happy to spread them anyway, knowing that their more gullible comrades will swallow the lies wholesale.
As the forgers of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion knew all too well, if your aim is to spread hate, lies are much more effective than truth.
What the fuck?
I’m not only pissed off that a rapist escaped conviction, I’m also pissed off that he used a non-excuse as an excuse.
He didn’t only raped the girl; he raped the girl and then declared to the world that he could do it and get away with it.
The problem with expecting MRAs to use a transphobic quote to discredit Steinem is that your average 2010s MRA is at least as transphobic as your average firebrand 1970s feminist.
One thing that struck me was that the jury only took 30 minutes to reach a “not guilty” verdict – which suggests to me that they were convinced by the evidence. Or not convinced, depending on one’s viewpoint.
So I suspect there may be more to it than the headlines are suggesting, and I’d be curious to read the judgement (although it doesn’t appear to have been published online yet).
Re: Machiavelli, the Prince, did he “mean” it, etc, check out this.
http://www.exurbe.com/?p=1429
It’s a great series, long, involved, lots of good history, very readable, very enjoyable.
About Machiavelli and “machiavellian”:
I remember that about three years ago, in high school, there was a question about which author had written a book about social contract that was a satire, and I, of course, answered with “Machiavelli”. Later I found out that the correct answer was supposed to be “Hobbes”.
I’m still kind of bitter about it.
As for the word, I think there’s not much point in discussing it since its meaning is pretty well established in the popular vernacular (like “Idiot”), but it’s kind of sad that Machiavelli will go down in history as a malicious person, when he might not have been.
I wonder if there are more cases like this? The only other term I remember being coined after a person is “sadism”, and that one seems to do justice to its origin.
@ Wetherby
Hi, the Crown Court generally* doesn’t do judgments as all the jury says is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ and there’s no mechanism for determining how they arrived at their decision.
[* I won’t bother with the exceptions unless people need an insomnia cure]
@ Rosa
I can’t think of any adjectival examples, but we have words like Boycott, Gerrymander, Quisling etc.
Oh, does ‘Socratic’ count?
I saw a tiny discussion on page 1 about transphobia.
That’s truly interesting. Isn’t this how it goes in the US anymore? In Brazil this still exists, and trans people still talk about how to pass such tests. To be accepted as trans woman you’re advised to say you have always loved dolls, that you love cooking, and pink dresses, and you like men (even if you are lesbian), etc. It’s awful.
And Brazilian transphobic feminists use this same argument, that trans women bring us several steps back in gender equality because of their exaggerated femininity and their concept of gender.
Of course they often exaggerate. Damn, if people put my gender identity in doubt I would dress in all pink and make a flowery tattoo with “girly girrrll” written in it. Just to make sure everyone understands that I’m bold about it.
The fact that things work here as they worked there 45 years ago only makes me more sure that we are literally decades behind in feminist issues.
@Rosa:
“Annoying” comes from the name of Leopold D’Annoi, one of the monks charged with compiling the Domesday Book. It turns out that if you probe too heavily into people’s financial status in order to prevent them from evading tax, they turn your name into a byword for irritation.
RE: Machiavelli
I learn so much here.
@Chiomara
Argentina’s law on gender identity requires nothing but the person’s request in order to change genders in their ID.
Also, medical insurances and public health must cover the costs of any treatment, from hormones to surgery.
This doesn’t hold back the transphobic people, feminist or otherwise, but we definitely hope such a law can help improve this type of laws in different countries.
re: the transphobia discussion
In the Silence of the lambs novel this actually shows up as villain had previously attempted to have reassignment surgery and was rejected because they were asked to draw a picture of a family and didn’t spend their entire time on the mother’s dress and jewelry.
Seriously.
Re: Machiavelli
I have a former coworker who was a PhD candidate doing their dissertation on the time period in Italy, they argued that it was not so much a satire or an embrace of realpolitik and more an expression of frustration at the political situation of the time and a plea for people to just do something.
I can’t think of “what makes the best leader” from The Prince without contrasting it with the Laozi, which argues that the true best leader is the one that goes unnoticed. The hierarchy there is:
Unnoticed
Loved
Feared
Hated
(See Laozi, 17)
That’s awesome, Luz.
If there’s a cause that breaks my heart it’s the one of Brazilian transgenders.
Someone up there said it would be awesome to see a story about transgenders of the 70’s… If someone here does documentaries, it would be awesome to do one with Brazilian trans. It’s a real massive problem here and they could use the visibility.
Someone has to make the government ashamed of what’s happening. It’s heartbreaking.
It’s always weird when, in a discussion, someone throws a random quote out there – even when it’s from some utterly anonymous person – expects accolades for using it at all…from the person they’re debating. They seem to go something like this:
“[Insert Quote Here] – [Insert Person I Don’t Know]”
“Um, okay, that’s silly I guess. How does that prove your point?”
“But it’s a ridiculous thing to say, right?!”
“Yeah, but it’s just one person’s opinion…”
“[Insert Quote Here] – [Insert Person I Don’t Know] (x2 or 3 or 4 or whatever)”
“Do you spend all day just searching for quotes to use in debates? If so, why do you keep using people I’ve never heard of? Do you not think that, just maybe, you’re being a bit obsessive and using highly selective reasoning?”
“GODAMMIT ADMIT I’M RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG!!!”
“No…”
“ARGLEBARGLEWAGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
@Ohlmann:
I don’t think there’s been enough time for that sort of thinking, it was just released to the general public today. Anyone who’s going to write that sort of column would have had to have been at the world premiere on Monday in order to have written that by now.
Also, if I may suggest, avoid scare quotes around “feminist ‘intellectual'” because it makes you look dismissive of feminism.
I have been waiting for a thread on personal stuff to talk about this, but as this isn’t happening, let me just tell you off topic things about my life:
Some of you may remember my boyfriend, who is German and who was being awful about Muslims and feminism. I am in his house in Germany! Him and his family gave me tickets as Christmas present. It’s the first time I leave my country, and it’s a whole new world! Coming here also made me understand him better. Turns out he has his reasons… As for Muslims, I met his family more in depth and noticed they are all casually racist and against refugees. He also has worked in refugee camps in and outside Europe and, according to himself, he saw enough ugly stuff not to think of refugees as little angels. Eh, go figure. Nevertheless I think I softened his heart a bit. And about feminism, he no longer sees the need of it because, well, we live in complete different dimensions. He most sincerely has no idea what women go through in my country. Everything is just so different here, for everyone. I think now I see why it’s so difficult for him to understand. He just needs a lot of patience because he is absolutely drowned in privilege. Even their toilet paper is fancy. You all living in the first world, never underestimate how lucky you are.
Oh, another funny thing is I am considered reeeeeaaaaaaalllllyyy white in my country. But here, even though I’m really pale, I’m being considered brown. It may be about skin undertones, theirs is pink and mine is brown, and this is a very very subtle difference, at least in my opinion. But his neighborhood is mostly composed of really truly white, blonde people, and they look at my face and just know I am foreign. Old ladies stare at me in the trains, it’s quite funny how everyone in my country consider me European looking and everyone here sees I’m foreign.
@Chiomara
Sadly, violence against LGBT (especially T) people is still rampant here. There is a lot of hate all over Latin America, actually, and I know the case of Brazil is particularly violent.
I wish the international LGBT community would speak up about it, but sadly the world hierarchies are strong even among us, and Northern countries (the case against laws in Russia comes to my mind) get way more attention than anyone South of the Equator :/
Also, best of wishes with your German boyfriend!
Privilege is hard to deal with for me because there’s a high risk of me getting hurt in the process of being patient, understanding and explaining all that stuff.
It happened with my last LTR, and even though I’m still sad about the break up, I’m relieved I don’t need to deal with horrible discussions which left him angry and contemptuous , and left me tired, sad and often humiliated 🙁
Then again, I’m glad it’s over and I have a strengthened privilege filter for potential long-term partners.
@Alan and EJ(TOO)
Thanks. Quisling and Gerrymander seem fair (although the former probably isn’t fun for anyone who inherited the name); Boycott makes sense; but the origin of “annoying” is kind of sad. I google Leopold D’annoi but nothing relevant showed up.
“He also has worked in refugee camps in and outside Europe and, according to himself, he saw enough ugly stuff not to think of refugees as little angels.”
I do agree with him : they aren’t angel. Nobody really is, and especially not someone from a war-torn country that have just endured a lot of trials and may very well have lost everything in the last few year. Plus, a number of them might be actual thief or forced to thievery by mafias.
The tricky part is to remember people that someone don’t need to be an angel to be worth helping, as well as not do too sweeping a generalization, and yet remember that, like most strangers, you have to have your guard up a small bit.
(strangers as “not acquaintance”, just in case I badly exprim myself again)
@Luzbelitx
I think I’m probably a good example of someone who knows more about
what happens in other countries than my own…
But from the little I know of the subject of transgender people in Brazil, I know that trying to bring up a discussion often results in derailing. Actually, trying to bring up a discussion about anything that is unpleasant to some Brazilian people often results in derailing. I know it happens everywhere, but here it seems even worse. I’ve just looked up an article, and in the comment section there were people trying to change the subject to talk about people dying thanks to our poor public health – which is something that obviously suck, but if they want to discuss that why don’t they go read an article about it?!
@Chiomara
Is sex reassignment surgery and hormones something that our health system covers, or even that health plans cover?
re: The no-good, awful, horrible, unbelievable rape case
If anyone wants a quick five-minute video talking about it, here’s The Young Turks giving an overview. Good info, and TYT is very progressive. They have an issue with calling bad people “crazy” quite a bit (thank you, everyone, for opening my eyes to that!) but they’re very watchable, and very passionate about improving things down in the US.
((I don’t know how to embed videos :c ))
@Ohlmann re: Star Wars Feminism
Talking about the original three movies; you have Princess Leia, a capable woman who is captured numerous times, used as a plot device requiring saving, used as eye-candy, and whose major plot point is romantic entanglement between the noble jedi knight in training and the handsome rogue trader. I love her, but she’s sort of a mixed bag when it comes to being a feminist role model.
And all of the other female characters in the movie? There’s one woman in a position to demonstrate competence, Mon Mothma, and you barely see her. Every single other female character is a stripper or dancer. Every single one.
I try to avoid thinking about the later prequels too much, but I can’t recall anyone other than Padme. Her central features are being in love with Anakin Skywalker, being chained to a post as giant bug monsters try to eat her, and fighting to save the Republic. Another mixed bag.
I’m sure there are better feminist reviews of Star Wars out there, but that is my appraisal!
@Scildfreja
Re: Padme
Don’t forget the “dying of sadness after giving birth”.
@Scildfreja: I agree that Leia is a mixed bag, but she killed the fat slug who valued her only for her appearance, and she also gets to ride to Han’s rescue when he gets carted away.
The ion control coordinator at Echo Base is a woman, but she only gets one line. I’m sure she has a name, probably given to her by the collectible card game.
At least three women were cast as starfighter pilots in Return of the Jedi, but only one of them made it on-screen, and she was dubbed over with a man’s voice, and the way the movie is cut makes it pretty clear she is killed after her only line.
Padme is not the only woman in the prequels, but she’s the only one who does anything like Obi-Wan and Anakin get to do outside of Episode I (she and her bodyguards storm the castle at Theed). There’s a few women among the Jedi but the role of the Jedi is apparently to fight and die.
The Clone Wars, both the Tartakovsky shorts and the fully developed series, have lots more women who do lots more things, and Rebels is pretty good, too. The Clone Wars series is especially notable because Asohka is the only woman who’s a main character who gets to undergo Jedi training and wield a lightsaber. I haven’t made an exhaustive count but I think the gender ratio among supporting Jedi characters is nearly parity.
(Also Jar Jar gets to solve a problem that he didn’t cause, for once!)
I am going to see The Force Awakens this Saturday, and fortunately I have avoided spoilers, but I’ve seen a few non-spoilery reactions that have gone REY FUCK YEAH.
To be fair, “Gerrymander” isn’t a name, it’s a portmanteau of Gerry and salamander. Somebody was redistricting, trying to keep his seat or something, and the new district was all long and thin and twisty.
That was in the early 19th Century. I’m sure the details are on Wikipedia but I lack the arse to look it up.